|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 13, 2020 17:06:20 GMT -5
Ha! That's what I get for posting the ramblings of a random internet Bod. Same dude was talking about "no awareness at all", which of course isn't the terms I would tend to use. Accordingly I don't attest to his use of the phrase oblivion, hehe. I'll hafta come back to the rest later now.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 13, 2020 17:11:43 GMT -5
That's interesting, and it certainly sounds like nirodha samapatti is the same state as NS because in NS there is a cessation of everything--time, space, thoughts, feeling, hearing, vision, etc. It was Ramana who claimed that NS is the deepest and SS is the highest. I assume that he considered it that way because NS is transient and usually attained via sitting meditation and SS is permanent and continues during everyday life. I never understood how vipassana tied into Buddhism, but I never had enough curiosity to investigate the matter. I lost interest in vipassana because I was told that the primary practice was being aware of both the "inside world" of thoughts, and the "outside world" of what we call "physical reality," and I had no interest in watching thoughts. I was interested in leaving thoughts behind because it seemed obvious that thoughts all deal with imaginary distinctions and are primarily language based. I was interested in learning how to see and interact with the world free of thoughts because I was convinced that the sense of selfhood existed as a consequence of internalized distinctions of separateness. At a certain point I became intuitively certain that if attention stayed focused on what is actual rather than what is imaginary, sooner or later the mind would shift in some way. I didn't know anything about brain plasticity at that time, but later it seemed as if my speculation about this was correct because after several years of shifting attention away from thoughts, the sense of separateness suddenly collapsed and totally vanished one day. Only after that happened did it become obvious that who I had thought I was had never existed, and that THIS had been the real seeker seeking to understand the context of human existence. I've seen you write this dozens of times, and even the first time I considered it incorrect. So, today, I googled vipassana meditation. I've read GN Goenka on vipassana, from whom the link is taken. I felt the wish to respond, and since you said you've never been interested in investigating, further, vipassana, thought it a good point to express what exactly vipassana is, in brief. No where in the short article is observing thoughts specifically mentioned. Observing sensations is said to be what vipassana is about. This is precisely your ATA-T (sensations can also be sensations within the body). The key point in my response is "I was told". Whoever told you this was incorrect. That's not your fault, but it is your fault that you repeat it continually, in error, having not had the interest to verify what someone told you. Now, further, you have also stated you can stop your thoughts. I commend you for insisting upon verifying from your own experience. Others have already 'invented the wheel'. And I know during your search years there was no internet and books were rare and had to be ordered, if one found out what to order. I have no problem with your then. But I offer this now, so as further error perpetuated might not dissuade others from what might be a fruitful path, for them. A little persistent vipassana will show that it too will cease thoughts. And it is for this reason that actually observing one's thoughts is virtually impossible. Now, what I have read, elsewhere concerning vipassana, is that when thoughts come, and they will, maybe for a long time, what one does is just note the thought, but then go back to observing sensations. www.dhamma.org/en/about/vipassanaI could also recommend reading a version of the Buddha's treatise on Fourfold Mindfulness. A most excellent version is by Thich Nhat Hanh, Transformation and Healing: Sutra on the Four Establishments of Mindfulness. Yes, mindfulness. (I don't think zd inferred it's without merit, just that it held no appeal for him).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 13, 2020 17:18:47 GMT -5
I've seen you write this dozens of times, and even the first time I considered it incorrect. So, today, I googled vipassana meditation. I've read GN Goenka on vipassana, from whom the link is taken. I felt the wish to respond, and since you said you've never been interested in investigating, further, vipassana, thought it a good point to express what exactly vipassana is, in brief. No where in the short article is observing thoughts specifically mentioned. Observing sensations is said to be what vipassana is about. This is precisely your ATA-T (sensations can also be sensations within the body). The key point in my response is "I was told". Whoever told you this was incorrect. That's not your fault, but it is your fault that you repeat it continually, in error, having not had the interest to verify what someone told you. Now, further, you have also stated you can stop your thoughts. I commend you for insisting upon verifying from your own experience. Others have already 'invented the wheel'. And I know during your search years there was no internet and books were rare and had to be ordered, if one found out what to order. I have no problem with your then. But I offer this now, so as further error perpetuated might not dissuade others from what might be a fruitful path, for them. A little persistent vipassana will show that it too will cease thoughts. And it is for this reason that actually observing one's thoughts is virtually impossible. Now, what I have read, elsewhere concerning vipassana, is that when thoughts come, and they will, maybe for a long time, what one does is just note the thought, but then go back to observing sensations. www.dhamma.org/en/about/vipassanaI could also recommend reading a version of the Buddha's treatise on Fourfold Mindfulness. A most excellent version is by Thich Nhat Hanh, Transformation and Healing: Sutra on the Four Establishments of Mindfulness. Yes, mindfulness. (I don't think zd inferred it's without merit, just that it held no appeal for him). But my point is that he has an incorrect view concerning exactly-what-it-is. This is a pretty good article on mindfulness, beginning with SN Goenka's version. lithub.com/mindfulness-and-meditation-are-flytraps-for-our-impulses/I guess a point I'm trying to make is if anyone who knows what vipassana/mindfulness actually is, and read zd saying do ATA-T rather than mindfulness, it would be confusing. Vipassana/Mindfulness is (essentially) ATA-T. (Read the two linked articles). Vipassana/Mindfulness is about attention, not thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 14, 2020 1:03:53 GMT -5
I've seen you write this dozens of times, and even the first time I considered it incorrect. So, today, I googled vipassana meditation. I've read GN Goenka on vipassana, from whom the link is taken. I felt the wish to respond, and since you said you've never been interested in investigating, further, vipassana, thought it a good point to express what exactly vipassana is, in brief. No where in the short article is observing thoughts specifically mentioned. Observing sensations is said to be what vipassana is about. This is precisely your ATA-T (sensations can also be sensations within the body). The key point in my response is "I was told". Whoever told you this was incorrect. That's not your fault, but it is your fault that you repeat it continually, in error, having not had the interest to verify what someone told you. Now, further, you have also stated you can stop your thoughts. I commend you for insisting upon verifying from your own experience. Others have already 'invented the wheel'. And I know during your search years there was no internet and books were rare and had to be ordered, if one found out what to order. I have no problem with your then. But I offer this now, so as further error perpetuated might not dissuade others from what might be a fruitful path, for them. A little persistent vipassana will show that it too will cease thoughts. And it is for this reason that actually observing one's thoughts is virtually impossible. Now, what I have read, elsewhere concerning vipassana, is that when thoughts come, and they will, maybe for a long time, what one does is just note the thought, but then go back to observing sensations. www.dhamma.org/en/about/vipassanaI could also recommend reading a version of the Buddha's treatise on Fourfold Mindfulness. A most excellent version is by Thich Nhat Hanh, Transformation and Healing: Sutra on the Four Establishments of Mindfulness. Yes, mindfulness. (I don't think zd inferred it's without merit, just that it held no appeal for him). Exactly, and I've even made this point in several public talks. I'm not opposed to people who want to practice mindfulness; I just don't think its a very effective approach. FWIW, at an early point in the search I practiced mindfulness, and even wrote newspaper articles recommending watching thoughts appear and disappear without following them. Later, it became obvious that thoughts are "sticky" and most people have a hard time letting thoughts appear without following them. It seemed to me that doing what little children do--interacting with the world directly through sensory perception sans thoughts--avoids the entire self-referential process and therefore doesn't reinforce it. I've known people who practiced mindfulness for twenty years and often think thoughts like, "I need to be more mindful." These kinds of thought are evidence that self-referentiality is still a major focus for them, and I was more interested in an activity that would cut off that focus and stop that entire cycle of imagining that there is a "me" who needs to do something. That's why I often advise using any self-referential thought that arises as a dharma bell reminder to shift attention away from such thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 14, 2020 1:09:36 GMT -5
Yes, mindfulness. (I don't think zd inferred it's without merit, just that it held no appeal for him). But my point is that he has an incorrect view concerning exactly-what-it-is. This is a pretty good article on mindfulness, beginning with SN Goenka's version. lithub.com/mindfulness-and-meditation-are-flytraps-for-our-impulses/I guess a point I'm trying to make is if anyone who knows what vipassana/mindfulness actually is, and read zd saying do ATA-T rather than mindfulness, it would be confusing. Vipassana/Mindfulness is (essentially) ATA-T. (Read the two linked articles). Vipassana/Mindfulness is about attention, not thoughts. I could go find books I've read that illustrate precisely what I'm talking about, but I'll leave that to others. I've made the distinction that mindfulness is ATA+T whereas ATA-T is a more effective activity for triggering realizations and collapsing the illusion of selfhood. People who have any doubts can experiment with both approaches, and determine for themselves which approach seems more efficacious.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2020 9:50:35 GMT -5
Well, it's hard to know exactly what some people have seen, and how deeply they've seen into the nature of THIS, but from what I can discern various people have discovered the truth in spite of a talkative mind and without ever entering states like NS. I think deep sustained silence is highly correlated with seeing through the consensus paradigm, but it doesn't seem to be absolutely necessary. As one example, just think about Paul Morgan-Somers, who, without any meditation or self-enquiry suddenly fell into the ocean of THIS. Or Ramana, for that matter. It may be that deep sustained silence is far more necessary for people who are already strongly attached to a particular conception of reality, but even here there are unique instances that don't fit the usual pattern. I'll post some writings when I get a chance that illustrate this. Laughter: One of the guys I was referring to is Art Ticknor, a teacher in the TAT organization. He often tells people that his thoughts have never slowed down, and I can't remember his ever talking about experiencing meditative states of mind like NS. His main teaching is about persistence because he searched for a long time (more than 30 years) before he finally had a breakthrough. He went to see various teachers, such as Douglas Harding, and he went on dozens of solo retreats. His main teacher was Richard Rose. I haven't read his book, "The Solid Ground of Being," but here's an excerpt from his book, "Beyond Relativity:" pp. 298-299: I came back to the cabin around 8:30 and found myself looking spontaneously back into what I look out from, as had happened several times earlier in the day. It occurred again as I finished a cup of tea and moved from the kitchen table to a chair in the living room. (ZD: he was on a solo retreat) I didn't lose body consciousness, but I sat in that chair without moving--in retrospect, I think someone coming into the cabin would have seen a comatose body--for maybe an hour, during which time I lost the final conviction of individuality and simultaneously became consciously what I am, have always been and will always be. I also witnessed the mind, as the open channel from its source "downloaded" way more information than it could consciously absorb. At 10:12 I made the following journal entry: The creature moves from the chair to the kitchen table, to record what has occurred over the past hour. His hand writes, not knowing how it knows. His memory is somewhat sketchy, so he will see how much of what occurred comes back. I say "he," but he is really Me. Well, as real as a shadow gets. I have created this one--a tableau of events, a story--and projected it so that he thinks he's alive, experiencing events over time; experiencing his "inner" and "outer" changes as well as changes in his "environment." One of the first occurrences in the tableau of tonight's realization was the realization that I, his newly found I, created him ("this creature sitting in the chair") and projected him. Then he thought of the nice old nun, Sister Phyllis, who's in charge of hospitality here--and realized that he/I had created her to think she was alive. And then he/I felt the love I have for My creations--and he/I felt the poignancy of that creature's belief that she is a separate being who was born alone and is going to die alone. And he wept for her. And then he/I realized that he (this creature) had really FELT for the first time.....This will give a flavor of what Art realized at that time..... Wow, now that strikes me as profoundly heavy, if you put yourself in Art's shoes at that moment. I can definitely relate to that sudden and radical shift in perspective in terms of identity, and I think several other's here can as well. Conversely, mainly from becoming familiar with the minds of others on this forum, I can understand how that witness-shift isn't necessarily such a major reorientation, or an event that should be anticipated or was significant. Surely, there might be some other sort of shift they might recount - like say, Tolle in his moment of truth - but it wouldn't be one I could necessarily relate to in direct terms, at least not totally.
The notion that Art's mind talk never slowed or ceased is interesting in the context of a solo retreat -- at the very least, he experienced a sustained cessation of outward silence and solitude.
Now, what I meant by my idea of " something significant" here goes directly to the individualized, experiential, felt-sense of events like these, just like Art expressed there about having FELT for the first time (!). That there are not-two is an existential truth beyond the reach of any idea, and it is often obscured by emotion and sensation. But, conversely, there are sensations, emotions and ideas that are related to discovering this truth.
So, it seems to me people can get to a point where there really is nothing left to realize, nothing left to seek, but yet, a potential for a deeper, experiential, felt sense of union, despite even having realized the fallacy of the notion of union altogether. It's the same internal quiescence that makes folks accident prone before grace that can offer those opportunities for deeper union. Despite having realized the fallacy of the notion of existential depth, already.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 14, 2020 10:47:29 GMT -5
Laughter: One of the guys I was referring to is Art Ticknor, a teacher in the TAT organization. He often tells people that his thoughts have never slowed down, and I can't remember his ever talking about experiencing meditative states of mind like NS. His main teaching is about persistence because he searched for a long time (more than 30 years) before he finally had a breakthrough. He went to see various teachers, such as Douglas Harding, and he went on dozens of solo retreats. His main teacher was Richard Rose. I haven't read his book, "The Solid Ground of Being," but here's an excerpt from his book, "Beyond Relativity:" pp. 298-299: I came back to the cabin around 8:30 and found myself looking spontaneously back into what I look out from, as had happened several times earlier in the day. It occurred again as I finished a cup of tea and moved from the kitchen table to a chair in the living room. (ZD: he was on a solo retreat) I didn't lose body consciousness, but I sat in that chair without moving--in retrospect, I think someone coming into the cabin would have seen a comatose body--for maybe an hour, during which time I lost the final conviction of individuality and simultaneously became consciously what I am, have always been and will always be. I also witnessed the mind, as the open channel from its source "downloaded" way more information than it could consciously absorb. At 10:12 I made the following journal entry: The creature moves from the chair to the kitchen table, to record what has occurred over the past hour. His hand writes, not knowing how it knows. His memory is somewhat sketchy, so he will see how much of what occurred comes back. I say "he," but he is really Me. Well, as real as a shadow gets. I have created this one--a tableau of events, a story--and projected it so that he thinks he's alive, experiencing events over time; experiencing his "inner" and "outer" changes as well as changes in his "environment." One of the first occurrences in the tableau of tonight's realization was the realization that I, his newly found I, created him ("this creature sitting in the chair") and projected him. Then he thought of the nice old nun, Sister Phyllis, who's in charge of hospitality here--and realized that he/I had created her to think she was alive. And then he/I felt the love I have for My creations--and he/I felt the poignancy of that creature's belief that she is a separate being who was born alone and is going to die alone. And he wept for her. And then he/I realized that he (this creature) had really FELT for the first time.....This will give a flavor of what Art realized at that time..... Wow, now that strikes me as profoundly heavy, if you put yourself in Art's shoes at that moment. I can definitely relate to that sudden and radical shift in perspective in terms of identity, and I think several other's here can as well. Conversely, mainly from becoming familiar with the minds of others on this forum, I can understand how that witness-shift isn't necessarily such a major reorientation, or an event that should be anticipated or was significant. Surely, there might be some other sort of shift they might recount - like say, Tolle in his moment of truth - but it wouldn't be one I could necessarily relate to in direct terms, at least not totally.
The notion that Art's mind talk never slowed or ceased is interesting in the context of a solo retreat -- at the very least, he experienced a sustained cessation of outward silence and solitude.
Now, what I meant by my idea of " something significant" here goes directly to the individualized, experiential, felt-sense of events like these, just like Art expressed there about having FELT for the first time (!). That there are not-two is an existential truth beyond the reach of any idea, and it is often obscured by emotion and sensation. But, conversely, there are sensations, emotions and ideas that are related to discovering this truth. So, it seems to me people can get to a point where there really is nothing left to realize, nothing left to seek, but yet, a potential for a deeper, experiential, felt sense of union, despite even having realized the fallacy of the notion of union altogether. It's the same internal quiescence that makes folks accident prone before grace that can offer those opportunities for deeper union. Despite having realized the fallacy of the notion of existential depth, already.
Yes, that line also struck me as significant. It was as if he had totally lived in his head up to that point in time and then, suddenly, was struck by the poignancy of what he saw. The same sort of thing happened to Norio Kushi while driving his big rig while contemplating the question, "What does it mean to be human?" At a certain point he began to feel sorrow about many things that had happened in his life, and he cried almost nonstop for several days. It was as if he had a lot of unconscious suppressed feelings that once released, flowed out in volume. Or, maybe he had an insight that had that effect.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2020 12:39:30 GMT -5
I've seen you write this dozens of times, and even the first time I considered it incorrect. So, today, I googled vipassana meditation. I've read GN Goenka on vipassana, from whom the link is taken. I felt the wish to respond, and since you said you've never been interested in investigating, further, vipassana, thought it a good point to express what exactly vipassana is, in brief. No where in the short article is observing thoughts specifically mentioned. Observing sensations is said to be what vipassana is about. This is precisely your ATA-T (sensations can also be sensations within the body). The key point in my response is "I was told". Whoever told you this was incorrect. That's not your fault, but it is your fault that you repeat it continually, in error, having not had the interest to verify what someone told you. Now, further, you have also stated you can stop your thoughts. I commend you for insisting upon verifying from your own experience. Others have already 'invented the wheel'. And I know during your search years there was no internet and books were rare and had to be ordered, if one found out what to order. I have no problem with your then. But I offer this now, so as further error perpetuated might not dissuade others from what might be a fruitful path, for them. A little persistent vipassana will show that it too will cease thoughts. And it is for this reason that actually observing one's thoughts is virtually impossible. Now, what I have read, elsewhere concerning vipassana, is that when thoughts come, and they will, maybe for a long time, what one does is just note the thought, but then go back to observing sensations. www.dhamma.org/en/about/vipassanaI could also recommend reading a version of the Buddha's treatise on Fourfold Mindfulness. A most excellent version is by Thich Nhat Hanh, Transformation and Healing: Sutra on the Four Establishments of Mindfulness. Yes, mindfulness. (I don't think zd inferred it's without merit, just that it held no appeal for him). Just as watching thoughts doesn't necessarily appeal to some folks. But, contrary to what the 'pilgrim has asserted, I maintain that it is, indeed, quite possible to observe thoughts. The last time I wrote about it in depth was here. In relation to the thread topic, there were times that I experienced a sense of effort, but they were few, far between and brief. There were other aspects of meditation, with attention directed outward, 16/7 walking/talking, that seemed more effortful at times. But by the time I was doing that I had no doubt about the nature of what it was that found attention and awareness to require effort.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 14, 2020 19:53:36 GMT -5
But my point is that he has an incorrect view concerning exactly-what-it-is. This is a pretty good article on mindfulness, beginning with SN Goenka's version. lithub.com/mindfulness-and-meditation-are-flytraps-for-our-impulses/I guess a point I'm trying to make is if anyone who knows what vipassana/mindfulness actually is, and read zd saying do ATA-T rather than mindfulness, it would be confusing. Vipassana/Mindfulness is (essentially) ATA-T. (Read the two linked articles). Vipassana/Mindfulness is about attention, not thoughts. I could go find books I've read that illustrate precisely what I'm talking about, but I'll leave that to others. I've made the distinction that mindfulness is ATA+T whereas ATA-T is a more effective activity for triggering realizations and collapsing the illusion of selfhood. People who have any doubts can experiment with both approaches, and determine for themselves which approach seems more efficacious. No, vipassana/mindfulness is not ( ATA+T). In vipassana/mindfulness when thoughts come, then it stops being vipassana/mindfulness. Then one goes back to attention on sensations. I suppose you didn't read the two links. I agree with you, there is no reason to go back and look up quotes which are incorrect vipassana/mindfulness.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 14, 2020 20:08:55 GMT -5
Yes, mindfulness. (I don't think zd inferred it's without merit, just that it held no appeal for him). Exactly, and I've even made this point in several public talks. I'm not opposed to people who want to practice mindfulness; I just don't think its a very effective approach. FWIW, at an early point in the search I practiced mindfulness, and even wrote newspaper articles recommending watching thoughts appear and disappear without following them. Later, it became obvious that thoughts are "sticky" and most people have a hard time letting thoughts appear without following them. It seemed to me that doing what little children do--interacting with the world directly through sensory perception sans thoughts--avoids the entire self-referential process and therefore doesn't reinforce it. I've known people who practiced mindfulness for twenty years and often think thoughts like, "I need to be more mindful." These kinds of thought are evidence that self-referentiality is still a major focus for them, and I was more interested in an activity that would cut off that focus and stop that entire cycle of imagining that there is a "me" who needs to do something. That's why I often advise using any self-referential thought that arises as a dharma bell reminder to shift attention away from such thoughts. All these are what (correct) vipassana/mindfulness are about. Same links as earlier: www.dhamma.org/en/about/vipassanalithub.com/mindfulness-and-meditation-are-flytraps-for-our-impulses/
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 14, 2020 20:34:13 GMT -5
Yes, mindfulness. (I don't think zd inferred it's without merit, just that it held no appeal for him). Just as watching thoughts doesn't necessarily appeal to some folks. But, contrary to what the 'pilgrim has asserted, I maintain that it is, indeed, quite possible to observe thoughts. The last time I wrote about it in depth was here. In relation to the thread topic, there were times that I experienced a sense of effort, but they were few, far between and brief. There were other aspects of meditation, with attention directed outward, 16/7 walking/talking, that seemed more effortful at times. But by the time I was doing that I had no doubt about the nature of what it was that found attention and awareness to require effort. I miss satch, he had it (mostly) right. He supplied good and accurate quotes from primary sources.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Jul 15, 2020 2:31:45 GMT -5
The whole discussion Jhanas / Theravada / Vipassana vs Zen is quite fascinating as it is something that has been interesting me the past months: My takeaway is that in Zen one often jumps directly to what others might call the 4th Jhana. In Vipassana retreats one focuses on the breathing at the nostrils for the first 3 days. For some reason it seems that fixing attention at the nostril will lead to the first Jhana. (If one has some experience with the Jhanas it doesn't take long to get into the first Jhana, a few breaths seem to be sufficient. That's probably also true for higher Jhanas for more experienced people.) In some sense the material Jhanas seem to be associated with parts of the body. The first Jhana is around the head (or even above) an then it goes downward in the body as one goes from 2 -> 3 -> 4. Especially going from the 3rd to the 4th Jhana seems to be associated with a sinking feeling (I think ZD calls this the elevator going down). For me I associate it with slowly sinking to the ground of a lake. The 4th Jhana feels somewhat like sitting under water at the bottom of a lake. "In-and-out-breathing is a thorn to the 4th Jhana." This means perception of breath reduces/stops (?) if/when fully established. In Zen people like to watch the breath in the lower abdomen. I think that's the reason why one goes to the 4th Jhana. The whole confusion about Vipassana seems imo to be that it can be practiced at different stages of absorption. It might be very different "to do something" after entering the 4th Jhana. Interestingly Vipassana seems to be also be practiced in some (?) Zen traditions: Consider Zhiyi's 6 subtle methods. "Zhiyi's Hsiao chih-kuan (小止観) offers an exposition of the practice of śamatha (calming or cessation) and vipaśyanā (wise seeing or contemplation)." (Wikipedia) From the Book of Serenity: "A contemporary of Sengcan was the meditation master and scholar Zhiyi. Although not figuring in the Zen transmission chains emphasized from the ninth and tenth centuries onward, nevertheless he is listed as a Zen master in the model Zen history Transmission of the Lamp. One of the most important figures in Chinese Buddhism, this sixth century adept is also known as the founder of the Tiantai school of Buddhism, a comprehensive school of study and practice said to have had an important impact on the development of early Zen." The six subtle methods are: 1. Counting 2. Following 3. Stopping or Cessation "Here the breath becomes imperceptible and mental activity ceases." (BOS) 4. Contemplation "Cessation, which results in deep tranquillity, is followed up by the fourth method called contemplation, in which the mind is reactivated to visualize the components of the body. This is done so as to internalize the understanding of the organism as a compound that is dependent and subject to disintegration. One purpose of this is to counteract intoxication by the calmness of cessation with the realization that it depends on the body-mind and is thus by nature impermanent and not ultimately reliable. 2 (BOS) 5. Returning "The fifth subtle method, called returning, similarly cuts through fixation to thestadpoint of the preceding stage of contemlation. It accomplishes this by turning the attention away from the object of contemplation to the mind itself that contemplates. This is the aforementioned exercise of looking for the mind, which is one of the main Zen meditation practices. Whithdrawal of the mind from objects and focusing it on the ungraspable essence of its own consciousness is intended to free the mind from clinging and return it to its original purity." (BOS) 6. Purity "In the sixth subtle method that follows on this, called purity, the practitioner experiences essential purity and finally attains spontaneity. In the sixth subtle method that follows on this, called purity, the practitioner experiences essential purity and finally attains spontaneity." See also Koan 3 BOS for more on the subtle methods. This doesn't seem to different from what some Vipassana/Theravada practitioners are doing. The 4th Jhana seems to corresponding to stopping. Another interesting point seems to be that most "energy practices" / Kundalini yoga seem to be correlated to the piti experienced in the first Jhana. I don't have a clear enough /regular experience of the immaterial Jhanas (5-8) to say anything about it and no experience of NS. I think I know the 5th Jhana, but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 15, 2020 5:51:20 GMT -5
I could go find books I've read that illustrate precisely what I'm talking about, but I'll leave that to others. I've made the distinction that mindfulness is ATA+T whereas ATA-T is a more effective activity for triggering realizations and collapsing the illusion of selfhood. People who have any doubts can experiment with both approaches, and determine for themselves which approach seems more efficacious. No, vipassana/mindfulness is not ( ATA+T). In vipassana/mindfulness when thoughts come, then it stops being vipassana/mindfulness. That's a different interpretation from Jon Kabat, Goldstein, and many others, but that's not surprising. There are at least a dozen slightly different definitions of mindfulness that can be found with a quick internet search. What I call ATA-T seems to be a slightly more aggressive attack on the habit of thought than what is usually written about in books about mindfulness, but it's certainly nothing worth arguing about. As noted before, I'm supportive of almost all forms of meditation because they all can be helpful in dispelling illusions created by thought. Some people even find visualization practices helpful although I never resonated with the idea of using the mind to generate more imaginary stuff than it was already generating. I was primarily interested in going in the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 16, 2020 13:44:06 GMT -5
No, vipassana/mindfulness is not ( ATA+T). In vipassana/mindfulness when thoughts come, then it stops being vipassana/mindfulness. That's a different interpretation from Jon Kabat, Goldstein, and many others, but that's not surprising. There are at least a dozen slightly different definitions of mindfulness that can be found with a quick internet search. What I call ATA-T seems to be a slightly more aggressive attack on the habit of thought than what is usually written about in books about mindfulness, but it's certainly nothing worth arguing about. As noted before, I'm supportive of almost all forms of meditation because they all can be helpful in dispelling illusions created by thought. Some people even find visualization practices helpful although I never resonated with the idea of using the mind to generate more imaginary stuff than it was already generating. I was primarily interested in going in the other direction. I will admit that some mindfulness meditation teachers teach to "gently" label whatever has taken your focus of attention, more than likely a thought. For instance, when you recognize thinking has occurred, say: thinking, and then go back to whatever you were attending to. Doing this never made any sense to me. I have read Jon Kabat-Z, but the book I have is not handy. I seem to recall him using a "with training wheels approach". From what I recall about J Goldstein, he had things pretty correct, but likewise his books not handy.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 16, 2020 14:22:18 GMT -5
That's a different interpretation from Jon Kabat, Goldstein, and many others, but that's not surprising. There are at least a dozen slightly different definitions of mindfulness that can be found with a quick internet search. What I call ATA-T seems to be a slightly more aggressive attack on the habit of thought than what is usually written about in books about mindfulness, but it's certainly nothing worth arguing about. As noted before, I'm supportive of almost all forms of meditation because they all can be helpful in dispelling illusions created by thought. Some people even find visualization practices helpful although I never resonated with the idea of using the mind to generate more imaginary stuff than it was already generating. I was primarily interested in going in the other direction. I will admit that some mindfulness meditation teachers teach to "gently" label whatever has taken your focus of attention, more than likely a thought. For instance, when you recognize thinking has occurred, say: thinking, and then go back to whatever you were attending to. Doing this never made any sense to me. I have read Jon Kabat-Z, but the book I have is not handy. I seem to recall him using a "with training wheels approach". From what I recall about J Goldstein, he had things pretty correct, but likewise his books not handy. Agreed. The advice given by teachers in the Vipassana and/or mindfulness traditions runs the gamut from "noting without labeling," to "verbally labeling," watching thoughts, watching both thoughts and the physical world, to being aware of "what is" without distinction. I do not remember any book on mindfulness advising people to shift attention away from thoughts (and especially self-referential thoughts) to direct sensory perception as a major focus of activity.
|
|